Bruce and the 451

[Morny]

Thought that Bruce may have been becoming more tactically 'clever' when we started using this, but increasingly I get the feeling that he stumbled upon it and doesn't really understand why it worked before, but decided to just stumble on in it.

To not play Richardson instead of Bardsley at LB is criminal (no doubt he'll file this under 'aint broke dont fix it'), and the fact he's persisted with Wellbeck at the 'left-wing' type role is poor, when he's had Gyan on the bench who has scored more and created more 'proper chances' than Wellbeck has, despite playing considerably few matches.

Surley he could have watched last week, seen that despite the win we weren't that good and made a few tweaks? I was happy with 4-5-1, but I thought we'd play it properly, with a proper attacking left-back (with a left foot) and by attempting to get some players other than Bent to score for us.

No doubt this will be marked under 'knee-jerk', but so be it.

[andy78]

You're spot on.

We should have either gone with 442 and started Bent and Gyan as the mags always seemed likely to start 442 as well after their win at West Ham last week but if we played 451 then Zenden should have started and not Welbeck.

[WoB]

Originally Posted by Morny

Thought that Bruce may have been becoming more tactically 'clever' when we started using this, but increasingly I get the feeling that he stumbled upon it and doesn't really understand why it worked before, but decided to just stumble on in it.

To not play Richardson instead of Bardsley at LB is criminal (no doubt he'll file this under 'aint broke dont fix it'), and the fact he's persisted with Wellbeck at the 'left-wing' type role is poor, when he's had Gyan on the bench who has scored more and created more 'proper chances' than Wellbeck has, despite playing considerably few matches.

Surley he could have watched last week, seen that despite the win we weren't that good and made a few tweaks? I was happy with 4-5-1, but I thought we'd play it properly, with a proper attacking left-back (with a left foot) and by attempting to get some players other than Bent to score for us.

No doubt this will be marked under 'knee-jerk', but so be it.

I think it's hindsight though isn't it? You could argue the signs were there but ultimately a manager has to put faith in those getting results I guess or he could end up losing the players, chopping and changing. I think the time to change is now though. Would be wonderful to always get the required changes right all the time but he's only human. As I said on another thread, if he'd made those changes you suggested and we'd got stuffed as we did anyway, we'd all be here saying 'why fix it, it wasn't broken'! You post was nowhere near to knee-jerk, so I will let you off!

[Morny]

Originally Posted by andy78

You're spot on.

We should have either gone with 442 and started Bent and Gyan as the mags always seemed likely to start 442 as well after their win at West Ham last week but if we played 451 then Zenden should have started and not Welbeck.

It's the Richardson thing for me like. I was genuinely amazed when I heard he wasn't starting. Our 451 looks a lot better when we have him on the left, as for a start he is actually left-footed which means he doesn't have to check inside all the time. He is also a lot better going forward than Bardsley, so gives us a bit more threat.

This decision more than any other just makes me think that Bruce doesn't really 'get' the tactical side of the game as much as I'd hope he does, and that he saw a winning team and thought 'best not change that'.

If that makes sense? I realise it's very rambley.

[Rammses]

I fully agree. I wouldn't be surprised if, that the big clubs are using it and an extra man in midfield keeps things tight in the middle, is frightingly close to his understanding of the system.

[The Exile]

4-4-2 is a guarantee of aimless hoofball imho. There has to be some system inbetween.

[andy78]

Originally Posted by Morny

It's the Richardson thing for me like. I was genuinely amazed when I heard he wasn't starting. Our 451 looks a lot better when we have him on the left, as for a start he is actually left-footed which means he doesn't have to check inside all the time. He is also a lot better going forward than Bardsley, so gives us a bit more threat.

This decision more than any other just makes me think that Bruce doesn't really 'get' the tactical side of the game as much as I'd hope he does, and that he saw a winning team and thought 'best not change that'.

If that makes sense? I realise it's very rambley.

I don't mind the Richardson decision so much but only because he's been out awhile and might have been a risk to start. Obviously in hindsight he should have started but I didn't think it was too strange when I found out about it.

[Poledancer]

I av been arpin on about 4-5-1 for fuckin weeks now
Its no fuckin good

[Hulkster]

Originally Posted by WoB

I think it's hindsight though isn't it?

No.

I can't agree with this idea that our players aren't suited to 442.

To me that is exactly the problem, 451 is fine if you have the players for it, but our players are archetypal 442 players and not really suited to anything else.

Look at the central midfielders, generally people would say you can't play someone in central midfield in a 442 if they are a 'luxury' player who doesn't contribute enough defensively. I don't think you could call either Cattermole or Henderson a luxury player. Cattermole is a defensive midfielder and Henderson, while a little more offensively minded, is a hardly a luxury, has a lot of stamina and energy and does his full share of defensive work.

I assume if you think this isn't the right sort of combo for 442, then you would have to think the appropriate combination for a 442 would be two defensive midfielders, like the Cana and Cattermole combo?

The strength of the 451 formation is that it frees up your flair players who score and make goals from their defensive duties and gets them further up the pitch. The problem is, we don;t have this type of player.

You need that type of player to make it work, because you are losing a forward. Our formation is putting pressure on Henderson to be a Lampard or Steed a Zidane, which they will never be. It doesn't have to be a world class player, even a Kevin Nolan would make the formation viable.

The way we are set up, Steed is a lot further forward than Henderson or Cattermole. Does he really add so much extra solidity to the team in that position to justify the resultant loss of goals? Sure, we would lose a bit of solidity dropping him back to left midfield and bringing in Gyan up front, but in my opinion that loss of solidity would be massively outweighed by an increase in potency.

Look at the wide players. Again, the 451 or 433 is designed to allow your wingers to operate more as wide forwards and produce more goal threat, producing maximum output from player like Malouda, Ronaldo, Kalou, or closer to our level, N'Zogbia. But our wide players aren't that type either. El Mohammady is an old fashioned winger, described by Bruce himself as a 'throwback'. He like to beat his man down the outside and whip the ball in, and he's quite good at it. But he's not going to score a lot of goals, and with only Bent up front, the return from his crosses is not going to be great either.

Wellbeck is in theory more suited to the formation in that he's a forward playing out wide, thats the theory, but I don't think scored a created a goal yet?

Even the defenders aren't particularly suited to it, how is 451 going to work when Turner is systematically booting the ball over the heads of the five midfielders into the area where Bent is battling four defenders on his own?

I understand how we ended up in this 451 situation, but for me the Gyan signing locked us in to a 442 squad. Its better to make the change from a position of relevant strength than waiting until results worsen and make the change out of panic. Just because you might be doing reasonably well doesn't mean you top looking to improve.

Even with the current squad, 451 can be effective grinding out a draw against the better sides when we can play on the counter, but it is a different story when it comes to breaking the lesser teams down.

I don't believe that SAFC can afford a £13m sub, by signing Gyan we committed to playing two strikers, it won't be sustainable to have only one player who can score with any sort of regularity at all.

Read more: http://www.readytogo.net/smb/showthr...#ixzz13xeMfw55

[st joes lad]

Originally Posted by Morny

Thought that Bruce may have been becoming more tactically 'clever' when we started using this, but increasingly I get the feeling that he stumbled upon it and doesn't really understand why it worked before, but decided to just stumble on in it.

To not play Richardson instead of Bardsley at LB is criminal (no doubt he'll file this under 'aint broke dont fix it'), and the fact he's persisted with Wellbeck at the 'left-wing' type role is poor, when he's had Gyan on the bench who has scored more and created more 'proper chances' than Wellbeck has, despite playing considerably few matches.

Surley he could have watched last week, seen that despite the win we weren't that good and made a few tweaks? I was happy with 4-5-1, but I thought we'd play it properly, with a proper attacking left-back (with a left foot) and by attempting to get some players other than Bent to score for us.

No doubt this will be marked under 'knee-jerk', but so be it.

spot on mate.post of the day.cant really add anything to that.